Information about NYC Mayor Adams' 2023 City of Yes Proposals

​

In September, 2023 NYC Mayor Adams announced his proposed changes to the NYC Zoning rules, which he called the City of Yes.  The plan is intended to dramatically increase the number of housing units in the city.  The proposals are similar to, but go far beyond the proposals by Governor Hochul in the New York State 2023-2024 budget cycle, which the Westmoreland Association and many other civic groups and municipalities around the state successfully opposed.  The Governor's proposals were the subject of the Westmoreland Association's February 8, 2023 letter copied below.  The Mayor's City of Yes proposals would profoundly and adversely affect areas now zoned for one- and two-family homes. The Queens Civic Congress (QCC), an umbrella organization representing most of the civic associations in Queens, has retained urban planner Paul Graziano to  lead the opposition to the extreme and unacceptable elements of the City of Yes proposal. The Westmoreland Association is a member of QCC and supports this effort.

​

At the Westmoreland Association's November 27, 2023 meeting, Mr. Graziano gave a presentation about the City of Yes proposal and, specifically, how it would affect the one- and two-family zoned areas in Northeastern Queens, including Little Neck and Douglaston.  Copies of the documents that he presented can be accessed here, including a three-page summary of concerns about the proposal (the third document below):

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

​

Written testimony of Walter Mugdan on behalf of Westmoreland Association for July 10, 2024 NYC Council Hearing on

“City of Yes” Housing Opportunity Package

Submitted by email on July 8, 2024 to: 24dcp033y_dl@planning.nyc.gov

 

I am the president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic association representing the Westmoreland area in Little Neck, in northeastern Queens.  We are strongly opposed to many elements within the City of Yes (CoY) Housing Opportunity package.

 

We agree that more AFFORDABLE housing needs to be built in NYC; but we do not agree that the CoY incentivizes affordable housing.

 

We agree with efforts to promote the conversion of underutilized office space to residential space.

 

We disagree with the stated CoY goal of eliminating one-family zoned areas.  NYC has one of the lowest percentages of one-family zoned dwellings of any major city in the nation.  It is appropriate and desirable for a large city to have mixed zoning, ranging from one-family homes to large apartment houses.  

 

We disagree with the proposal to allow ADUs to be created in any one-family property.  

 

We disagree with the proposal to eliminate the requirement for parking spaces with any new development.  In places like northeastern Queens, where mass transit access is limited, and it is virtually necessary to use a car to do most kinds of shopping, the elimination of parking requirements is particularly troublesome. 

 

We disagree with the amount of residential development that will be allowed above commercial spaces.  In our community, commercial buildings along major arteries such as Northern Boulevard typically have one to two stories above the commercial first floor; we are concerned with the excessive density that would accompany increases to three and four stories above the commercial first floor.

 

We urge that these and related elements be removed from the CoY package.

 

We note that existing zoning throughout NYC is currently sufficient, if more fully utilized, to provide the number of additional units that the Mayor and the Planning Commission are seeking.  It is not necessary to eliminate the relatively small amount of one-family homes in NYC to accommodate the legitimate need for additional housing.

 

Sincerely,

 

Walter Mugdan

President, Westmoreland Association, Inc.

251-31 42nd Avenue

Little Neck, NY  11363

http://www.westmoreland.org

​​

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

​

Testimony at April 8, 2024 NYC Council Hearing on Economic Opportunity package of "City of Yes" Proposals:

​

My name is Walter Mugdan.  I serve as president of the Westmoreland Association, a civic representing the Westmoreland section of Little Neck in northeast Queens.  Our community is primarily residential, with single- and some multi-family homes.  Our Association also covers an active commercial district along a stretch of Northern Boulevard that includes many businesses, and larger apartment houses.

​

We have serious concerns about several aspects of the City of Yes Economic Opportunity package.  In particular, we strongly oppose the provision authorizing corner stores and offices in residential communities such as ours; and the provision authorizing stores or offices on large-scale sites in residential communities. 

​

The whole point of having communities that are zoned residential, with separate nearby areas zoned for commercial uses, is to provide those who live in the residential areas with a more peaceful community environment, and to encourage and facilitate neighborliness among the resident, while providing for reasonable access to shopping, restaurants and other commercial services. 

​

What we do not need in our residential community, which measures about 5 blocks long by 4 blocks wide, are corner stores, and businesses like barber shops, beauty parlors and nail salons, each with several employees, and with signs outside. Even more damaging to any residential community would be the large scale stores and offices that under this proposal could be built if a developer assembles a 1.5 acre parcel.

​

The language of these proposals includes purported safeguards, such as requiring the Commission to determine that these otherwise non-conforming uses will “generate a minimum of traffic” and will not “produce objectionable effects” nor “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.”

​

However, these are all highly subjective standards to be administered by an agency that is explicitly committed to expanding commercial activity into residential neighborhoods. 

​

Because the standards are entirely subjective, it will be nearly impossible for residents to successfully oppose the authorization of such uses in their communities. 

​

Moreover, the way in which these subjective standards are formulated makes them essentially self-fulfilling.  Approval of the first such non-conforming use in a given community will likely be determined by the Commission to not violate the standards.  The same will be true of the second, and the third.  And soon the point will be reached where the essential character of the neighborhood has already been so far altered, that the Commission will determine that further approvals would not significantly further alter the essential character.  It will be an example of the law of cumulative impacts: each individual action has only a small impact; but taken together the actions have a profound impact.

​

Commercial uses belong in, and should be encouraged in, appropriate commercial zones, but not in residential zones.  We urge the Council to reject these elements of the Economic Opportunity package. 

​

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

​

Opposing Certain Housing-Related Elements of the Governor's 2023-24 Budget Proposal

​

February 8, 2023

Hon. Kathy Hochul
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany, NY  12224

​

Dear Governor Hochul:

​

We write to express our deep concern about, and strong opposition to, certain elements of  your budget proposal submitted to the State Legislature on Feb. 1, 2023.

​

The Westmoreland Association is a homeowners and civic association representing over 330 households, straddling both sides of the Queens/Nassau County border.  We are located primarily in the Little Neck area of Queens, with a smaller portion in the Great Neck area of Nassau.  We are bounded generally by Northern Boulevard on the south, Little Neck Parkway on the west, 39th Road and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Port Washington Branch line on the north, and Nassau Road on the east.  The Little Neck LIRR station is immediately adjacent to our northern boundary.  Most of the Westmoreland area is currently zoned for one-family homes with a minimum lot size of 40 X 100 feet. 

Among the elements of the budget proposal to which we are opposed are the following:

​

Mandatory increased density through Transit Oriented Development (TOD): 

​

We agree that transit hubs and associated "downtown" areas near transit stations are logical areas for higher density zones.  However, the budget proposal would create density that is greatly excessive for many of the affected areas.  The TOD proposal requires a density of at least 50 units per acre in a half mile radiusaround transit stations in and within 15 miles of New York City, decreasing to 30 units/acre within 30 miles of NYC and 20 units/acre within 50 miles of  NYC.   For the combined Little Neck-Douglaston area, the TOD proposal would  require an increase from the current total of approximately 1,460 units to more than 13,800 units -- an astounding and disastrous 945% increase.  Such an increase will dramatically and unfavorably change the character of these stable, predominantly middle-class neighborhoods.  [NOTE: after this letter was sent, a recalculation of the impact on the Little Neck-Douglaston community showed a current total of approximately 2,976 units that would increase to 18,135 units under the TOD proposal, a still disastrous 609% increase.]

​

Importantly, there is nothing in the proposal that would require or even incentivize the creation of affordable housing in TOD areas; on the contrary, these would all be market rate housing units.  

​

These areas have been zoned by the responsible local governments as part of a thoughtful, contextual zoning plan that provides a reasonable balance among different density limits.  For example, the large majority of New York City, including much of Queens, is zoned for very high densities.  Eastern Queens is one of the few areas of the City zoned for lower densities.

​

The TOD proposal is a proverbial "blunt instrument" that entirely ignores the existing development patterns which give communities and neighborhoods their desirable diverse character.  For example, thanks to thoughtful zoning, many of the areas near transit stops on the LIRR's Port Washington branch already have a "downtown" character (including but not limited to Woodside, Flushing, Murray Hill, Bayside, Great Neck, etc.), and these already have appropriate higher density zoning with larger apartment buildings and supporting commercial development for food shopping, etc.  

​

By contrast, the area immediately around the Little Neck station is almost entirely residential, with virtually no commercial development.  Instead, the associated "downtown" portion of Little Neck -- where much higher density zoning already prevails and where there is extensive and appropriate commercial development -- is centered on Northern Boulevard, a major thoroughfare located at and just beyond a half mile from the Little Neck railroad station.  The TOD proposal completely ignores the sensible, existing development pattern in Little Neck, blindly imposing high density requirements in precisely the wrong places.

​

The TOD and associated proposals would have very significant impacts on the adequacy of infrastructure, including roadways, parking, and school capacity; none of these are addressed in the budget proposals.  On the contrary, a mere $250 million is provided for infrastructure improvements statewide -- an almost trivial amount considering that the TOD proposal itself would generate far more than a million new units in Long Island alone, and many more in Queens, other parts of NYC, and Westchester.  

​

As noted at the outset, the goal of focusing increased density near rail stations is reasonable, but it is very important that the detailed judgments be left to local governments, which are best able to balance the needs for additional housing with the need to maintain appropriate zoning diversity and quality of life considerations.  It is precisely for this reason that zoning has always been understood to be a local issue, appropriate for local decision-making.  Importantly, and in that context, we note that the TOD proposal,  as well as other elements of the budget proposal, violate the State constitution and the rights of local governments to do their own planning.  

​

Legalization of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), regardless of local zoning: 

​

This budget proposal would allow basement and attic apartments, garage conversions, and additional building units, regardless of local plans and zoning regulations.  This is disastrous for contextually planned, single-family zoned areas such as ours.  Among other concerns, the proposal has no on-site parking requirements, and no reference to safety requirements (e.g., with respect to basement dwellings where flooding can be fatal, as tragically demonstrated during Hurricane Ida in 2021).  The proposal ignores impacts on local infrastructure (parking availability, roadway adequacy, school capacity, etc.).  

​

Even worse, the proposal would give property tax exemptions to those owners creating ADUs, thus reducing the revenues available to local governments that will be necessary to respond to the increased infrastructure needs of the affected communities! And as with the TOD proposal, the proposal includes no requirement to ensure -- or even incentives to promote -- affordability.  On the contrary, the ADUs would be market-rate rentals.  

​

Amnesty for all illegal conversions in NYC: 

​

This proposal is deeply flawed, as it ignores the fact that many illegal conversions are highly dangerous.  Fires from faulty wiring and flooding from poor design have caused many injuries and fatalities.  The proposal includes no obligation on the owners of these illegal and often dangerous units to self-identify and bring their units up to code.  Indeed, because the owners who do self-identify will pay higher taxes (both property and income), there is a strong disincentive for them to come forward.  There is also no provision to provide for increased funding and staffing sufficient to enable local building departments to oversee the amnesty program and enforce safety codes.  As with other proposals, here too there is no requirement that the illegal units be affordable. 

​

Violation of Home Rule principle: 

​

The budget proposals provide for mandatory housing density targets on a 3-year cycle in all municipalities, with State-level intervention and over-ride if the targets are not met.  This is another serious violation of the Home Rule principle in the State constitution.  This principle recognizes that planning and zoning decisions are best made at the local level, with proper contextual consideration of existing development patterns and thoughtful targeting of future development.  

​

Inappropriate use of the budget process to carry out complex legislative initiatives: 

It is entirely inappropriate to seek to enact legislation as sweeping, complex and consequential as this through the annual -- and notably opaque -- state budget process.  With a scant two months for public review and engagement, this is the antithesis of a transparent, informative and informed political process.

​

Absence of public engagement, and ignoring the concerns of homeowners:

​

The proposals fail entirely to consider the concerns of the residents of the affected areas. Instead, after three years the state would indiscriminately impose the density changes without any local feedback or recourse. The proposals fail to recognize the changes to the qualities of life that brought every homeowner to purchase in that area.  While change in a community is inevitable, and there is never a guarantee for any homeowner that no unwished for changes will occur, these proposals impose changes by fiat in a way that would never happen under local jurisdiction.  People cherish the freedom to choose the type of neighborhood they want for themselves and their families; and they expect to have a reasonable opportunity to influence the pace and nature of change through their local elected officials.  Thoughtful urban planning has always promoted diversity, with a vibrant and interesting city being made up of a wide variety of different types of neighborhoods.  These proposals are wholly inconsistent with that sensible approach.

​

We urge that these proposals be removed from the budget process, and that any further consideration of these or similar proposals take place through the appropriate legislative process.  

​

Sincerely, 

​

 

Walter Mugdan
President 

​

cc:  Lieutenant Governor Anthony Delgado
      State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli
      State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, State Senate Majority Leader
      State Senator Robert G. Ortt, State Senate Minority Leader
      Assembly Member Carl E. Heastie, Speaker & Assembly Majority Leader
      Assembly Member William A. Barclay, Assembly Minority Leader
      State Senator Toby Stavisky 
      State Senator John Liu
      Assembly Member Edward Braunstein
      Queens Borough President Donovan Richards
      NYC Council Member Vickie Paladino
      Queens Civic Congress
      Douglaston Civic Association
      Douglas Manor Association

​

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>